[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

‘Cops’ and ‘Live PD’ Pulled from TV in Response to George Floyd Protests

Protester tackled by police during News 4 interview

George Floyd protests: Livestream Links

Columbus Antifa terrorists

These terrorists need bullets in the head! Period!

Without Consulting Trump White House — Defense Secretary Esper Orders National Guard NOT to Carry Guns or Ammunition in Washington DC

Hypocrite Governor Gretchen Whitmer Keeps Business in Lockdown — Encourages Leftists to Protest in the Streets, Joins Them!

The Great Reset: A Unique Twin Summit to Begin 2021

Fedex Truck Driver Being Harrassed Then Ends Up Dragging Protester (hopefully the rioter is DEAD!)

Antifa Burning A Homeless Man’s Possessions. This Is The Left

Video: BLM Protect Muslims So They Can Pray Safely During The Riots

Police and the Protestors (Local story)

The Shallow Deep-State Goes Deeper as It Moves Toward Martial Law

A Monument to Authoritarianism (Lincoln Memorial)

Los Angeles community members protecting business from looters handcuffed and detained

Politically Correct Playing Cards

Uber Eats Start Free Delivery From Black-Owned Restaurants

White People (Antifa) Handing Out Bricks to Black Youth (Pawns)

Buffalo Police Seriously Injure 75-Year-Old Man During Protest

The Carrie Nations: "Find It" (Obscure '60s Psych Rock from "Valley of The Dolls")

Take Your Favorite Kids To a Playground This Weekend

Bullitt Mustang Auction

Free Convertible Teslas (Tesla Model 3 crashes into overturned truck on highway)

Armed Patriots patrol Coeur d’Alene

How to fight back against antifa rioters without using violence

CNN: White Children ‘Don’t Deserve Innocence’

Joel Osteen Joins Paula White, Tony Evans And Other High-Level Laodicean Church Hirelings To March In Solidarity With Black Lives Matter

David Dees, CT artist, 1957-2020

RIOT COMPILATION IN THE USA

Leftist rioters coming for you

11 "Modern Antiques" Kids Today Have Never Seen

Tucker Carlson: This Is How Nations Collapse (a long but worthy read)

The Truth About Police Violence and Race

NBA announcer Grant Napear fired over ‘All Lives Matter’ comment

"WE'RE ON YOUR SIDE! WE'RE ON YOUR SIDE" Hilarious!

'He Did Not Pray': Fallout Grows From Trump's Photo-Op At St. John's Church

The Bible according to Pelosi

Israeli scientists dig up cannabis traces in ancient temple

The Epitome of Rioting Irony and Ignorance in One Tweet

George Floyd Endgame: Martial Law and a Police State

(Martial Law) “Light Em Up!” Minneapolis PD and National Guard Do A Street Sweep During Curfew

Salt Lake City cops shove down an elderly man with a cane for moving too slowly

They call him Martin Looter Kang (Looters loot from other looters to get more loot)

White People, Portland Cops Take a Knee to Ask Forgiveness For “Racism”

The Virtue of the Fear Mask

Trump deploys US military to restore order in Washington, DC & says he'll do the same EVERYWHERE if local govts fail

Is It One Gigantic Psy-Op? George Floyd’s Coroner Was Also Jeffrey Epstein’s

It Don’t Make Any Damn Sense (Must Watch)

Minneapolis Rioters Attack Tanker Truck, Rip Driver Out and Beat Him, Driver arrested

New York woman attacked outside business in disturbing video as looting, rioting grip Rochester, report says


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

BANNED AT LIBERTYPOST
See other BANNED AT LIBERTYPOST Articles

Goldi banned censored delete elpee

Title: NO WARNINGS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. You're gone: tpane banned at eLPee by sysadmin, Gatlin, Palmdale, community agitators
Source: eLPee
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... .cgi?ArtNum=349958&Disp=12#C12
Published: Jan 6, 2015
Author: sysadmin
Post Date: 2015-01-06 22:46:59 by Hondo68
Keywords: community agitators, palmdale, tater, gatlin
Views: 44786
Comments: 94

#6. To: sysadmin (#5) (Edited)

URL Source: [None]
Post Date: 2015-01-05 22:01:50 by tpaine

L.A. Times v. Free Republic

Source: The Washington Post.

I can see it now: The Washington Post v. Liberty Post courtesy of tpaine.

How much did the lawsuit cost Free Republic?

Sys Admin - I suggest you remove the article and include tpaine in your ping since he posted it. Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine KNOWS this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/01/05/uncivil- obedience/

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-06   20:27:00 ET  Reply   Trace  


#7. To: sysadmin (#5)

FYI

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-06   20:33:42 ET  Reply   Trace  


#8. To: Gatlin (#6)

Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.

Not good.

Palmdale  posted on  2015-01-06   20:35:13 ET  Reply   Trace  


#9. To: Palmdale (#8)

Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.

Not good.

Not good at all!!!

Gatlin  posted on  2015-01-06   20:38:20 ET  Reply   Trace  


#10. To: Gatlin, Palmdale, tpaine (#9)

Are you guys saying that tpaine deliberately posted copyrighted material and attempted to hide that it was coming from such a source? That is a serious charge.

Tpaine, I'm giving you the opportunity to explain whether or not this is the case. In the meantime I am going to redact the original article until the truth of this can be determined.


#12. To: tpaine (#11)

I'd say we should wait and see if the washpost sends us another infringement notice. -- I'd bet that since we no longer have an 'owner' (subject to finding Goldies will), that they simply won't bother, and so will no one else.

Yes, I now "own" the virtual server LP is running on as I am the one one paying the bill. Very soon LP will be running on my own server. I am the one who will be held responsible for any violations.

I'm very sorry, but I will not tolerate illegal actions of any kind here. NO WARNINGS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. You're gone.

Since the offending material has been removed I will leave this thread here as a warning. I'll leave it open for now but may lock it after hearing what the community has to say.

sysadmin  posted on  2015-01-06   20:53:31 ET  Reply   Trace  


Poster Comment:

Shot down by nanny state community organizers, tater and palmjob.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: hondo68 (#0)

You're gone: tpane banned at eLPee by sysadmin, Gatlin, Palmdale, community agitators

We duns good huh..Spike huh..huh?

Spikes my hero....

("Throw me to the wolves...and I will return leading the pack")

Murron  posted on  2015-01-07   0:20:44 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: hondo68 (#0)

Sysadmin seems like an asshole to me. The punk just stole libertypost.

You can tell the asshole.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-07   9:38:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone (#2)

Sysadmin seems like an asshole to me. The punk just stole libertypost.

I'm wondering if he's some long time poster there, like Magician?


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party


"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-07   10:14:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: hondo68 (#3)

Edited to add a footnote: It is nice to see the forum running more smoothly than I have ever seen it. Slowly the garbage is disappearing and more are getting down to friendly discussions and not creating or engaging in flame wars.

Gatlin posted on 2015-01-07 15:09:12 ET

Get a load of this boat load of crap.

www.libertypost.net/cgi-b...ArtNum=349980&Disp=30#C30

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-01-07   15:20:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Fred Mertz, commandant tater, rat fink, no goodnik, thought police (#4)

LOL! Yeah, I was just reading that about 30 seconds ago.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party


"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-07   15:37:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: hondo68 (#5)

He likes putting on airs you know that. He's an annoying POS and he knows that.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-07   15:49:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#1)

From LP:

#25 To: A Pole, sysadmin (#21) (Edited)

How to Avoid Unintentional Online Copyright Infringement.

Gatlin posted on 2015-01-07 6:44:47 ET

Gatlin's link is now the first link provided in a new LP "help" section on copyright infringement.

The link goes to a 2011 article about Righthaven. Preaching the ravings of Righthaven is a poorly chosen example.

http://www.rendervisionsconsulting.com/blog/how-to-avoid-unintentional-online-copyright-infringement-and-the-lawsuits-it-can-cause/

In 2011, Righthaven tried its douchebag act against DU. DU countersued and won $131,457.50 just in legal fees, and caused Righthaven to soon be bankrupt and out of business.

Below is Document 201 of 14 June 2012 from the case.

RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limited liability company,
Plaintiff,

v.

DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, LLC, a District of
Columbia limited-liability company; and DAVID ALLEN,
an individual,
Defendants.

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01356-RLH-GWF

O R D E R

(Motion for Attorneys’ Fees #191)

Before the Court is Defendants Democratic Underground and David Allen’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#191, filed Apr. 10, 2012). Plaintiff Righthaven LLC did not respond to the motion.

The Court notes that this motion was originally brought as against both Plaintiff Righthaven and against Counter-defendant Stephens Media LLC. However, on May 25, Democratic Underground and David Allen submitted a notice to the Court (Dkt. #200) stating that they were withdrawing the portion of their motion directed at Stephens Media separately and Stephens Media and Righthaven jointly. Thus, the only portion of the motion that remains for the Court to address is the request for fees against Righthaven separately from Stephens Media. However, since Righthaven has failed to oppose the motion, the Court need not even address that portion of the motion substantively.

Rule 7-2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice provides that failure to file points and authorities in opposition to a motion constitutes a consent that the motion be granted. Abbott v. United Venture Capital, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 828, 831 (D. Nev. 1989). It has been said these local rules have the force of law no less than the federal rules or acts of Congress. United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 574-75 (1958); see also Weil v. Neary, 278 U.S. 160, 169 (1929); Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722, 723 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, the Court grants Defendants request for fees in the amount of $131,457.50 against Righthaven.

The Court further notes that it has reviewed the motion substantively, considered the non-exclusive factors used in the Ninth Circuit to determine whether fees should be awarded in a copyright action, Entm’t Research Group v. Genesis Creative Group, 122 F.3d 1211, 1229 (9th Cir. 1997), and determined that fees are warranted in this case. Further, the Court has determined that the fees Defendants request are reasonable under the lodestar method. See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhard, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Thus, even had Righthaven responded to the motion, the result would be the same.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, and for good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (#191) is GRANTED. The Court awards fees as against Righthaven in the amount of $131.457.50.

Dated: June 12, 2012.

ROGER L. HUNT
United States Judge

DU nailed Righthaven not only for its case, but for all previous cases. Righthaven was bankrupted and auctioned off.

From Document #116, ORDER issued 14 June 2011

5. Prior Rulings within this District

Finally, Righthaven contends that multiple courts within this district have already determined that Righthaven has standing to bring claims for past infringement under the Silver standard based on the plain language of the copyright assignment. At best, this argument is disingenuous. As the undersigned issued one of the orders Righthaven cites for this argument, the undersigned is well aware that Righthaven led the district judges of this district to believe that it was the true owner of the copyright in the relevant news articles. Righthaven did not disclose the true nature of the transaction by disclosing the SAA or Stephens Media’s pecuniary interests. As the SAA makes abundantly clear, Stephens Media retained the exclusive rights, never actually transferring them to Righthaven regardless of Righthaven’s and Stephens Media’s current contentions. Further, Righthaven also failed to disclose Stephens Media in its certificates of interested parties, despite Stephens Media’s right to proceeds from these lawsuits. (Dkt. #79, Ex. 1, SAA Section 5 (granting Stephens Media a fifty percent interest in any recovery, minus costs).)

Since those orders were tainted by Righthaven’s failure to disclose the SAA and Stephens Media’s true interest, those decisions are not persuasive and do not support standing here.

[...]

IV. Order to Show Cause

As shown in the preceding pages, the Court believes that Righthaven has made multiple inaccurate and likely dishonest statements to the Court. Here, however, the Court will only focus on the most factually brazen: Righthaven’s failure to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in Righthaven’s Certificate of Interested Parties. (Dkt. #5.) Rule 7.1-1 of the Local Rules of Practice for the District of Nevada requires parties to disclose “all persons, associations of persons, firms, partnerships or corporations (including parent corporations) which have a direct, pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case.” This Local Rule requires greater disclosure than Federal Rule 7.1, which only requires non-governmental corporate parties to disclose parent corporations or corporations owning more than 10% of the party’s stock. Frankly, if receiving 50% of litigation proceeds minus costs (Dkt. #79, SAA Section 5) does not create a pecuniary interest under Local Rule 7.1-1, the Court isn’t sure what would.

Making this failure more egregious, not only did Righthaven fail to identify Stephens Media as an interested party in this suit, the Court believes that Righthaven failed to disclose Stephens Media as an interested party in any of its approximately 200 cases filed in this District. Accordingly, the Court orders Righthaven to show cause, in writing, no later than two (2) weeks from the date of this order, why it should not be sanctioned for this flagrant misrepresentation to the Court.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/copyright-troll-righthaven-finally-completely-dead/

Copyright troll Righthaven finally, completely dead

Never had standing to sue, Ninth Circuit confirms.

by Nate Anderson - May 9, 2013 7:00 pm UTC

Righthaven, the Las Vegas operation that sought to turn newspaper article copyright lawsuits into a business model, can now slap a date on its death certificate: May 9, 2013. This morning, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the two Righthaven appeals that could have given the firm a final glimmer of hope—and the court told Righthaven to take a hike (PDF).

[snip]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Righthaven

On October 26, 2011, Righthaven was ordered to pay $119,488 in attorney's fees and court costs in its lawsuit against former federal prosecutor Thomas DiBiase. Righthaven had sued DiBiase for posting a Review-Journal story about a murder case without permission. Hunt, who had also presided over the Democratic Underground case, threw out Righthaven's suit that summer after finding Righthaven lacked standing.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-07   16:25:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#3)

I'm wondering if he's some long time poster there, like Magician?

Gatlin?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-07   16:27:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: nolu chan (#7)

Good find, thank you, nc, Righthaven is a poorly chosen example, but one only has to look at the source to understand. lmbo....

May I have your permission to post this information on LP?

("Throw me to the wolves...and I will return leading the pack")

Murron  posted on  2015-01-07   16:43:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: nolu chan, sysadmin, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#8)

Gatlin?

No, the new "owner", squatter, mossad operative, whatever.... sysadmin. He's got that same ahole aura as Magician.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party


"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-07   16:45:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Murron (#9)

May I have your permission to post this information on LP?

Certainly. Use it however you please.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-07   18:05:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#9)

It should be noted that tpaine was wrong to post the offending material. tpaine was also wrong to advocate doing it again. His banning was justified — LP can't just let him do it again and again. Removing the offending material was correct and necessary. However, the assertion that such poster action would immediately subject a site owner to meritable copyright action is also wrong. The site owner would be responsible if, as in the case of Free Republic, he receives a takedown request and refuses to comply, citing an imagined 1st Amendment right to do so. In LA Times v. Free Republic, a judgment of 14 November 2000 stated, "6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Free Republic and James C. Robinson are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000,000 for statutory damages. Electronic Orchard is not liable for these statutory damages." Trying to exert such non-existent right can be a million dollars wrong.

The argument of DU against Righthaven goes into the issue of a volitional act requirement. If the presence of the offending material is due to a volitional act of the site owner, that is asking for trouble.

From Righthaven v. DU, 24 Oct 2011, DU Pleading

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNTERCLAIM; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

[Excerpt, footnotes omitted}

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Democratic Underground and David Allen

Democratic Underground maintains a website at www.democraticunderground.com (the “DU Website”) devoted to disseminating and discussing political news and progressive policies. Allen Decl. ¶ 3. Defendant David Allen is the principal of Democratic Underground LLC. Id. ¶ 4. The company has two other employees. The DU Website consists primarily of user-generated content in the form of posting by readers in one of various discussion forums (the “DU Forum”). Id. ¶ 5. The DU Website has more than 165,000 registered users who have, since its founding in 2001, posted more than 52 million posts to discussion threads addressing items of political and public interest. Id. The DU Website is supported by advertising revenue generated by display of advertising on the site. Id. ¶ 6.

While Democratic Underground owns and manages the DU Website, it does not prescreen posts by contributors. Id. ¶ 7. Once a contributor writes a post, the post gets added through an automated process into a database on the server that hosts the DU Website. Id. When a reader seeks to access the web address of a particular post or DU Forum (such as by clicking a link to that location in a browser), a request is automatically sent to the server. Its software will then automatically retrieve the contents of that post from the database and send them to the reader through the Internet. Id. ¶ 8. Neither Mr. Allen nor the other two employees read every post made by users at the DU Website; in fact, such a task would be impossible as there are an average of 14,000 posts per day. Id. ¶ 9. Democratic Underground does not offer posters any financial incentive for adding content to the site. Id. ¶ 10.

Democratic Underground proactively works against copyright infringement by, among other things, advising users to post only short excerpts and to provide a link to the original when posting about a news article. Id. ¶ 11-12; Ex. A. For example, on the forum for “Latest Breaking News,” contributors must identify the source and provide a link to the news article they post about in the form they fill out to make the post. Id. ¶ 12. In addition, Democratic Underground encourages readers to notify moderators if a post contains an entire article by clicking on an “Alert” link that is included on every post. Id. ¶ 13. The moderator will then edit the post to include only a short excerpt or delete the post. Id.

[...]

ARGUMENT

I. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WERE MERITLESS FROM THEIR INCEPTION

A. Democratic Underground Has Committed No Volitional Act of Infringement

Democratic Underground is entitled to a declaration that it did not infringe Stephens Media’s copyright by virtue of Pampango’s post. Under the Copyright Act, direct liability only attaches, if at all, to the party who controls the decision to copy—in the case of an online forum, the user who uploaded the material. An online forum host like Democratic Underground, whose role is limited to hosting the material, cannot be liable for direct infringement as a matter of law. This Court addressed the volitional act requirement in Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006), in which the plaintiff alleged that Google directly infringed when it showed users copies of material that were “cached” on its computers—i.e., stored automatically for ease of delivery to those searching for those materials. See Id. at 1115. The Hon. Robert Jones disagreed, holding that a “plaintiff must also show volitional conduct on the part of the defendant in order to support a finding of direct copyright infringement.” Id.; accord Parker v. Google, Inc., 422 F. Supp. 2d 492 (E.D. Pa. 2006). This Court’s decision relied upon Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-line Commnc’n Servs., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995), one of the seminal and most important cases addressing online service provider copyright liability.

In Netcom, an Internet service provider was accused of direct copyright infringement based on a customer’s posting of material to the service provider’s servers. See Id. at 1367-68. The court rejected the direct infringement claim, holding that it requires “some element of volition or causation which is lacking where a defendant’s system is merely used to create a copy by a third party.” Id. at 1370. Volitional control over the copying is necessary because any other “theory would create many separate acts of infringement and carried to its natural extreme, would lead to unreasonable liability” through the mere operation of the Internet. Id. at 1369.

While the volitional act requirement is tremendously important to the Internet, it is not a new rule. The Copyright Act has always required volition–as embodied within its protection of the exclusive right “to do” one of the actions reserved for copyright owners in 17 U.S.C. § 106. Netcom simply interpreted § 106 for the digital age and has been widely followed.

The Fourth Circuit’s holding in CoStar is particularly instructive. CoStar was a real estate listing service that took photos of commercial real estate offered by its customers. LoopNet provided an online hosting service for real estate listings. Some of CoStar’s customers also wanted listings on LoopNet, and uploaded CoStar’s copyrighted photographs for display on the LoopNet website. See CoStar Group, Inc., 373 F.3d at 546-47. CoStar sued for direct infringement. Following Netcom, the Fourth Circuit held that “[b]ecause LoopNet, as an Internet service provider, is simply the owner and manager of a system used by others who are violating CoStar’s copyrights and is not an actual duplicator itself, it is not directly liable for copyright infringement.” Id. at 546.

Accordingly, the fact that Democratic Underground operates the DU Website, upon which a third party posted allegedly infringing material, does not state a claim for direct copyright infringement. Although the burden of proof for a copyright claim includes the essential element of volition, the undisputed facts show that Democratic Underground did not engage in any volitional act to display the Excerpt. Allen Decl. ¶¶ 5-9; 21. Moreover, as soon as Democratic Underground learned of a potential infringement claim, it removed the Excerpt. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Likewise, to the extent that Stephens Media adopts Righthaven’s assertions that Democratic Underground can be held liable because of its alleged general knowledge that some postings contain infringing material (Compl. ¶ 19), or because of “willful blindness” to infringement (Id. ¶ 23), these will not suffice. As CoStar cogently explains, even constructive knowledge that some DU Website users may be using the forum to engage in copyright infringement would be insufficient to state a direct liability claim. CoStar, 373 F.3d at 549; see also Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Maphia, 948 F. Supp. 923, 934 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (no direct liability even where defendant operating website knew some infringing games were uploaded and solicited others to upload games). Indeed, in CoStar, the user-uploaded photos were reviewed by LoopNet employees before posting, and CoStar had informed LoopNet of its claims for copyright infringement long before filing suit, yet, this was still insufficient. Democratic Underground, by contrast, does not pre-review posts, and neither Righthaven nor Stephens Media notified the forum prior to the lawsuit. Allen Decl. ¶ 9.

For this reason alone, the Court should grant summary judgment declaring that Democratic Underground did not infringe by virtue of a user posting the Excerpt.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-07   20:46:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Murron (#9)

Wonder if tpaine is coming over here.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-08   0:28:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: redleghunter (#13)

He's probably still reading LP so what not ping him to let him know he's welcome...

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-08   7:03:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: redleghunter (#13)

Wonder if tpaine is coming over here.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

Redleg, you've got to admit that the juxtaposition of your comment and your tagline is kind of funny.

It's like: Tpaine - come on over to LF, and you'll become a son of God!

Now THAT'S Powah!

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-08   8:26:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#9)

http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349958&Disp=63#C63

I don't see a problem with the information in the link. The RVC Blog article was not information and/or directions from Righthaven about how to avoid unintentional online copyright infringement and the lawsuits that it can cause.

Righthaven was merely used as an example to show the need for preventative measures. Yes they lost their case. I read all about that while it was happening.

Gatlin posted on 2015-01-07 21:25:00 ET

Righthaven did not "lose its case." The bomb that exploded in the DU case tainted all previous cases by Righthaven, and doomed all pending cases, with Righthaven being liable for legal fees and expenses in all of them. There were hundreds of cases that burned and crashed. The liabilities quickly extinguished the Righthaven shell.

http://www.rendervisionsconsulting.com/blog/how-to-avoid-unintentional-online-copyright-infringement-and-the-lawsuits-it-can-cause/

This article discusses the basics and suggests ways to avoid being a victim of a Righthaven campaign.

The best way to overcome fear of being a victim of "a Righthaven campaign" is to know that DU, with help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) squashed Righthaven, exposed them for what they were, and sent them and their business model into retirement. At this time, fearing a Righthaven campaign is like fearing a rampaging herd of unicorns.

Update: [...] Among other issues, their case was flawed in that they apparently did not have full ownership of the copyrighted material in question.

Righthaven decidedly lacked ownership and, thereby, any standing to sue on behalf of Righthaven. Not only did they not have ownership in the Hoehn and DiBiase cases, the DU case blew up in their face when DU obtained proof that Righthaven deliberately misled the Court, and specifically the same judge in both cases, about the nature of its business agreement and its falsely alleged ownership of copyright. Righthaven had no standing to bring any of their cases and one after another the pending cases blew up in awards of legal fees.

While Righthaven appears to have made some strategic blunders (see VegasInc.com article regarding “lack of legal standing”), they set a precedent with their business model. Given the lawsuit oriented society we live in, if Righthaven fails, others will likely come along and try to perfect the process.

They set a precedent with their business model... that's one way to put it. It does not appear anyone has tried to "perfect" the Righthaven model.

https://www.eff.org/effector/24/21

Victory! Court Declares Righthaven Copyright Troll Lawsuit a Sham

In a decision with likely wide-ranging impact, a judge in Las Vegas dismissed as a sham an infringement case filed by copyright troll Righthaven LLC. The judge ruled that Righthaven did not have the legal authorization to bring a copyright lawsuit against EFF's client, the political forum Democratic Underground, because it had never owned the copyright in the first place. Regarding the victory, EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl said: "Righthaven's copyright litigation business model is fatally flawed, and we expect the decision to have wide effect on the over 270 other cases Righthaven has brought."

http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/righthaven-v-hoehn.pdf

In Righthaven v. Hoehn No. 11-16751 and Righthaven v. DiBiase No. 11-16776, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion excoriating Righthaven. The Court explained the sham that was Righthaven thusly: (footnotes omitted)

OPINION

CLIFTON, Circuit Judge:

Abraham Lincoln told a story about a lawyer who tried to establish that a calf had five legs by calling its tail a leg. But the calf had only four legs, Lincoln observed, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so. Before us is a case about a lawyer who tried to establish that a company owned a copyright by drafting a contract calling the company the copyright owner, even though the company lacked the rights associated with copyright ownership. Heeding Lincoln’s wisdom, and the requirements of the Copyright Act, we conclude that merely calling someone a copyright owner does not make it so.

[...]

The SAA provided that Stephens Media automatically received an exclusive license in any copyrighted work it assigned to Righthaven, so that Stephens Media retained “the unfettered and exclusive ability” to exploit the copyrights. Righthaven, on the other hand, had “no right or license” to exploit the work or participate in any royalties associated with the exploitation of the work. The contracts left Righthaven without any ability to reproduce the works, distribute them, or exploit any other exclusive right under the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. § 106. Without any of those rights, Righthaven was left only with the bare right to sue, which is insufficient for standing under the Copyright Act and Silvers.

[...]

Righthaven also argues that the district court failed to construe the contract in accordance with the “parties’ intent to convey all rights necessary . . . for Righthaven to have standing.” Under Nevada law, which the SAA provided should govern its interpretation, courts should effectuate the intent of the parties when construing ambiguous contracts. Sheehan & Sheehan v. Nelson Malley & Co., 117 P.3d 219, 223–24 (Nev. 2005). But the contract was not ambiguous. The SAA clearly delineated the respective rights of Righthaven and Stephens Media in any assigned works. Moreover, the contract evinced not just an intent that Righthaven receive whatever rights were necessary for it to sue, but also an intent that Stephens Media retained complete control over all exclusive rights. The problem is not that the district court did not read the contract in accordance with the parties’ intent; the problem is that what the parties intended was invalid under the Copyright Act.

[...]

Under either the original or amended SAA, Righthaven was not the owner of any exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. It therefore lacked standing to sue for infringement. The motions to dismiss in both Hoehn and DiBiase were properly granted.

For those who have trouble understanding Righthaven, TechDirt poster Arsik Vek summed it up in the following humorous reader comment and received recognition for most insightful comment of the week—and second funniest comment of the week. Marc Randazza represented Wayne Hoehn in litigation with Righthaven. Stephens Media owned the copyrights.

Righthaven was an empty shell. Stephens Media owned the copyrights. Righthaven could have filed its shotgun litigation on behalf of Stephens, but then the assets of Stephens would be at risk if the whole thing went south.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130316/02363422348/righthaven-copyrights-sold-back-to-stephens-media-80k-to-pay-legal-fees.shtml

Arsik Vek, Mar 18th, 2013 @ 6:55am

So, to make sure I'm getting this right....

1) Stephens Media decides to get them some of that awesome copyright trolling money.

2) Stephens Media spawns Righthaven.

3) Stephens Media takes their box o' copyright, dumps out all the contents, then sells Righthaven the empty cardboard box.

4) Righthaven brandishes the empty cardboard box in a threatening fashion demanding money.

5) Court says that's fscking retarded, demands Righthaven pay back legal fees.

6) Righthaven puts the empty box over their head and pretends they can't hear.

7) Court takes Righthaven away and starts auctioning it off. Realizes it has no assets except an empty cardboard box.

8) Randazza takes the empty cardboard box and sells it back to Stephens Media for $80k.

In the end, Stephens Media donates eighty thousand dollars and it's reputation to Randazza for no appreciable gain. Well done.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130323/15595622430/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt from the victories,-both-repeat-and-pyrrhic dept

This week, it turned out that the Righthaven saga was not quite over. The denouement led Arsik Vek to win most insightful comment of the week—and second funniest comment of the week—by summing up the story:

[...]

Number 8 is the best joke.

8) Randazza takes the empty cardboard box and sells it back to Stephens Media for $80k.

Righthaven lacked standing because the court found Stephens still owned the copyrights. Randazza offered the Righthaven empty shell to Stephens Media and Stephens paid the $80k for the copyrights it already owned. Well, that and avoiding further litigation about the mess and the misrepresented deal between Stephens Media and Righthaven.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-08   9:25:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Murron, A K A Stone (#9)

DMCA SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS - Codified in Statute

DMCA = Digital Millenium Copyright Act

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-17/chapter-5/section-512/

http://statecodesfiles.justia.com/us/2012/title-17/chapter-5/section-512/section-512.pdf

2012 US Code

Title 17 - Copyrights

Chapter 5 - COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES (§§ 501 - 513)

Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND REMEDIES - 17 U.S.C. § 512 (2012)

§512. Limitations on liability relating to material online

(a) Transitory Digital Network Communications.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if—

(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;

(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;

(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;

(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and

(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.

(b) System Caching.—

(1) Limitation on liability.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider in a case in which—

(A) the material is made available online by a person other than the service provider;

(B) the material is transmitted from the person described in subparagraph (A) through the system or network to a person other than the person described in subparagraph (A) at the direction of that other person; and

(C) the storage is carried out through an automatic technical process for the purpose of making the material available to users of the system or network who, after the material is transmitted as described in subparagraph (B), request access to the material from the person described in subparagraph (A),

if the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are met.

(2) Conditions.—The conditions referred to in paragraph (1) are that—

(A) the material described in paragraph (1) is transmitted to the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) without modification to its content from the manner in which the material was transmitted from the person described in paragraph (1)(A);

(B) the service provider described in paragraph (1) complies with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the material when specified by the person making the material available online in accordance with a generally accepted industry standard data communications protocol for the system or network through which that person makes the material available, except that this subparagraph applies only if those rules are not used by the person described in paragraph (1)(A) to prevent or unreasonably impair the intermediate storage to which this subsection applies;

(C) the service provider does not interfere with the ability of technology associated with the material to return to the person described in paragraph (1)(A) the information that would have been available to that person if the material had been obtained by the subsequent users described in paragraph (1)(C) directly from that person, except that this subparagraph applies only if that technology—

(i) does not significantly interfere with the performance of the provider's system or network or with the intermediate storage of the material;

(ii) is consistent with generally accepted industry standard communications protocols; and

(iii) does not extract information from the provider's system or network other than the information that would have been available to the person described in paragraph (1)(A) if the subsequent users had gained access to the material directly from that person;

(D) if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) has in effect a condition that a person must meet prior to having access to the material, such as a condition based on payment of a fee or provision of a password or other information, the service provider permits access to the stored material in significant part only to users of its system or network that have met those conditions and only in accordance with those conditions; and

(E) if the person described in paragraph (1)(A) makes that material available online without the authorization of the copyright owner of the material, the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), except that this subparagraph applies only if—

(i) the material has previously been removed from the originating site or access to it has been disabled, or a court has ordered that the material be removed from the originating site or that access to the material on the originating site be disabled; and

(ii) the party giving the notification includes in the notification a statement confirming that the material has been removed from the originating site or access to it has been disabled or that a court has ordered that the material be removed from the originating site or that access to the material on the originating site be disabled.

(c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users.—

(1) In general.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, if the service provider—

(A)(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;

(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(B) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

(2) Designated agent.—The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:

(A) the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

(B) other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate.

The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.

(3) Elements of notification.—

(A) To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(B)(i) Subject to clause (ii), a notification from a copyright owner or from a person authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner that fails to comply substantially with the provisions of subparagraph (A) shall not be considered under paragraph (1)(A) in determining whether a service provider has actual knowledge or is aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent.

(ii) In a case in which the notification that is provided to the service provider's designated agent fails to comply substantially with all the provisions of subparagraph (A) but substantially complies with clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) of subparagraph (A), clause (i) of this subparagraph applies only if the service provider promptly attempts to contact the person making the notification or takes other reasonable steps to assist in the receipt of notification that substantially complies with all the provisions of subparagraph (A).

(d) Information Location Tools.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link, if the service provider—

(1)(A) does not have actual knowledge that the material or activity is infringing;

(B) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or

(C) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material;

(2) does not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, in a case in which the service provider has the right and ability to control such activity; and

(3) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity, except that, for purposes of this paragraph, the information described in subsection (c)(3)(A)(iii) shall be identification of the reference or link, to material or activity claimed to be infringing, that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate that reference or link.

(e) Limitation on Liability of Nonprofit Educational Institutions.—(1) When a public or other nonprofit institution of higher education is a service provider, and when a faculty member or graduate student who is an employee of such institution is performing a teaching or research function, for the purposes of subsections (a) and (b) such faculty member or graduate student shall be considered to be a person other than the institution, and for the purposes of subsections (c) and (d) such faculty member's or graduate student's knowledge or awareness of his or her infringing activities shall not be attributed to the institution, if—

(A) such faculty member's or graduate student's infringing activities do not involve the provision of online access to instructional materials that are or were required or recommended, within the preceding 3-year period, for a course taught at the institution by such faculty member or graduate student;

(B) the institution has not, within the preceding 3-year period, received more than two notifications described in subsection (c)(3) of claimed infringement by such faculty member or graduate student, and such notifications of claimed infringement were not actionable under subsection (f); and

(C) the institution provides to all users of its system or network informational materials that accurately describe, and promote compliance with, the laws of the United States relating to copyright.

(2) For the purposes of this subsection, the limitations on injunctive relief contained in subsections (j)(2) and (j)(3), but not those in (j)(1), shall apply.

(f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or

(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

(g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability.—

(1) No liability for taking down generally.—Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

(2) Exception.—Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider—

(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material;

(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and

(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network.

(3) Contents of counter notification.—To be effective under this subsection, a counter notification must be a written communication provided to the service provider's designated agent that includes substantially the following:

(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.

(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.

(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.

(D) The subscriber's name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber's address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

(4) Limitation on other liability.—A service provider's compliance with paragraph (2) shall not subject the service provider to liability for copyright infringement with respect to the material identified in the notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C).

(h) Subpoena To Identify Infringer.—

(1) Request.—A copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner's behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer in accordance with this subsection.

(2) Contents of request.—The request may be made by filing with the clerk—

(A) a copy of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A);

(B) a proposed subpoena; and

(C) a sworn declaration to the effect that the purpose for which the subpoena is sought is to obtain the identity of an alleged infringer and that such information will only be used for the purpose of protecting rights under this title.

(3) Contents of subpoena.—The subpoena shall authorize and order the service provider receiving the notification and the subpoena to expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the copyright owner information sufficient to identify the alleged infringer of the material described in the notification to the extent such information is available to the service provider.

(4) Basis for granting subpoena.—If the notification filed satisfies the provisions of subsection (c)(3)(A), the proposed subpoena is in proper form, and the accompanying declaration is properly executed, the clerk shall expeditiously issue and sign the proposed subpoena and return it to the requester for delivery to the service provider.

(5) Actions of service provider receiving subpoena.—Upon receipt of the issued subpoena, either accompanying or subsequent to the receipt of a notification described in subsection (c)(3)(A), the service provider shall expeditiously disclose to the copyright owner or person authorized by the copyright owner the information required by the subpoena, notwithstanding any other provision of law and regardless of whether the service provider responds to the notification.

(6) Rules applicable to subpoena.—Unless otherwise provided by this section or by applicable rules of the court, the procedure for issuance and delivery of the subpoena, and the remedies for noncompliance with the subpoena, shall be governed to the greatest extent practicable by those provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the issuance, service, and enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum.

(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—

(1) Accommodation of technology.—The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider—

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and

(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.

(2) Definition.—As used in this subsection, the term “standard technical measures” means technical measures that are used by copyright owners to identify or protect copyrighted works and—

(A) have been developed pursuant to a broad consensus of copyright owners and service providers in an open, fair, voluntary, multi-industry standards process;

(B) are available to any person on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; and

(C) do not impose substantial costs on service providers or substantial burdens on their systems or networks.

(j) Injunctions.—The following rules shall apply in the case of any application for an injunction under section 502 against a service provider that is not subject to monetary remedies under this section:

(1) Scope of relief.—(A) With respect to conduct other than that which qualifies for the limitation on remedies set forth in subsection (a), the court may grant injunctive relief with respect to a service provider only in one or more of the following forms:

(i) An order restraining the service provider from providing access to infringing material or activity residing at a particular online site on the provider's system or network.

(ii) An order restraining the service provider from providing access to a subscriber or account holder of the service provider's system or network who is engaging in infringing activity and is identified in the order, by terminating the accounts of the subscriber or account holder that are specified in the order.

(iii) Such other injunctive relief as the court may consider necessary to prevent or restrain infringement of copyrighted material specified in the order of the court at a particular online location, if such relief is the least burdensome to the service provider among the forms of relief comparably effective for that purpose.

(B) If the service provider qualifies for the limitation on remedies described in subsection (a), the court may only grant injunctive relief in one or both of the following forms:

(i) An order restraining the service provider from providing access to a subscriber or account holder of the service provider's system or network who is using the provider's service to engage in infringing activity and is identified in the order, by terminating the accounts of the subscriber or account holder that are specified in the order.

(ii) An order restraining the service provider from providing access, by taking reasonable steps specified in the order to block access, to a specific, identified, online location outside the United States.

(2) Considerations.—The court, in considering the relevant criteria for injunctive relief under applicable law, shall consider—

(A) whether such an injunction, either alone or in combination with other such injunctions issued against the same service provider under this subsection, would significantly burden either the provider or the operation of the provider's system or network;

(B) the magnitude of the harm likely to be suffered by the copyright owner in the digital network environment if steps are not taken to prevent or restrain the infringement;

(C) whether implementation of such an injunction would be technically feasible and effective, and would not interfere with access to noninfringing material at other online locations; and

(D) whether other less burdensome and comparably effective means of preventing or restraining access to the infringing material are available.

(3) Notice and ex parte orders.—Injunctive relief under this subsection shall be available only after notice to the service provider and an opportunity for the service provider to appear are provided, except for orders ensuring the preservation of evidence or other orders having no material adverse effect on the operation of the service provider's communications network.

(k) Definitions.—

(1) Service provider.—(A) As used in subsection (a), the term “service provider” means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term “service provider” means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefor, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).

(2) Monetary relief.—As used in this section, the term “monetary relief” means damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other form of monetary payment.

(l) Other Defenses Not Affected.—The failure of a service provider's conduct to qualify for limitation of liability under this section shall not bear adversely upon the consideration of a defense by the service provider that the service provider's conduct is not infringing under this title or any other defense.

(m) Protection of Privacy.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to condition the applicability of subsections (a) through (d) on—

(1) a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity, except to the extent consistent with a standard technical measure complying with the provisions of subsection (i); or

(2) a service provider gaining access to, removing, or disabling access to material in cases in which such conduct is prohibited by law.

(n) Construction.—Subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) describe separate and distinct functions for purposes of applying this section. Whether a service provider qualifies for the limitation on liability in any one of those subsections shall be based solely on the criteria in that subsection, and shall not affect a determination of whether that service provider qualifies for the limitations on liability under any other such subsection.

(Added Pub. L. 105–304, title II, §202(a), Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2877; amended Pub. L. 106–44, §1(d), Aug. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 222; Pub. L. 111–295, §3(a), Dec. 9, 2010, 124 Stat. 3180.) References in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsec. (h)(6), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure. Codification

Another section 512 was renumbered section 513 of this title. Amendments

2010—Subsec. (c)(2). Pub. L. 111–295 struck out “, in both electronic and hard copy formats” after “Internet” in concluding provisions.

1999—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 106–44, §1(d)(1)(A), substituted “Limitation on Liability of Nonprofit Educational Institutions” for “Limitation on liability of nonprofit educational institutions” in heading.

Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 106–44, §1(d)(1)(B), struck out par. heading “Injunctions”.

Subsec. (j)(3). Pub. L. 106–44, §1(d)(2), substituted “Notice and ex parte orders” for “Notice and Ex Parte Orders” in heading. Effective Date

Pub. L. 105–304, title II, §203, Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2886, provided that: “This title [enacting this section and provisions set out as a note under section 101 of this title] and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 28, 1998].”

nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-08   9:27:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Fred Mertz (#4)

" Get a load of this boat load of crap. "

Yeah, a real wad.

They should change the name of the place to "Romper Room".

They way it is going, they will eventually implode.

Stoner  posted on  2015-01-08   14:00:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Stoner (#18)

Stupid Old Drunk/SOD returned with a vengeance.

Palmhair has become emboldened.

Tater/Gatlin plays the Eddie Haskell role pretty well.

It is interesting to watch.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2015-01-08   14:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

It's like: Tpaine - come on over to LF, and you'll become a son of God!

Now THAT'S Powah!

LOL only you Vic would come up with that:)

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-08   16:37:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Fred Mertz, CZ82, Liberator (#19)

Willie Green is back too. Once a favorite (/sarc) for many! Although it is just an alternate screen name is my estimate.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (John 1:12)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-01-08   16:39:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: hondo68 (#10)

No, the new "owner", squatter, mossad operative, whatever.... sysadmin. He's got that same ahole aura as Magician.

http://69.164.197.124/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349939&Disp=103#C103

The bloviating gasbag also known a tpaine was removed from the site for knowing violating posting rules and putting any and all owners of this site in legal and fiscal peril.

Gatlin posted on 2015-01-08 10:00:16 ET

Who the heck is/are "any and all owners" of LP?

http://who.is/domain-history/libertypost.org

The registration information shows eNom, Inc (R39-LROR), and "Raw Registrar Data December 28, 2014" indicates registrar info in Panama, with the name of the contact information listed as "WhoisGuard Protected."

The "Old Registrar Info" shows shows Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR), and "Old Raw Registrar Data February 17, 2010" with a location of 12 Carroll St., Suite 6022, Westminster, MD 32256 with the administrative contact information listed as Goldi Lox at the same address. The technical contact information lists Goldi Lox at the same address except the zip code is listed as 21157.

32256 is Jacksonville, FL. 21157 is Westminster, MD.

The legal owner of the site would appear to be the estate of Goldi-Lox. The site registration was changed post-mortem. If the domain ownership was released for non-payment, it could have been purchased by a new owner of the domain name. If someone just paid the bill, then the domain name remains with the estate of Goldi. Any equipment owned by Goldi, such as a server, would be part of her estate. I recall LP having a fund raiser to buy a new server some time back.

Assuming Goldi was truly intestate (no will), if the State does not find a living relative, estate property goes to the State of Florida. Unless someone at LP is a living relative, they are not going to inherit any property such as a server.

Things such as insurance policies designated to some person or organization go as designated.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-08   18:05:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: nolu chan, Jeb Bush Liberty Post (#22)

estate property goes to the State of Florida

Maybe Jeb Bush will buy it at a gov auction.

Sysadmin was talking about moving it onto his existing server, to further reduce costs.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party


"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-08   19:40:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: hondo68 (#23)

Maybe Jeb Bush will buy it at a gov auction.

Jeb Bush -- mebbe he can buy the GOPe nomination. I can see the primary campaign issue now -- would you rather have another George W. Bush term or another Bill Clinton term?

nolu chan  posted on  2015-01-08   23:35:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: nolu chan (#24)

I would rather have another Clinton term.

That's an easy one.

Under Clinton, the economy soared and we had a budget surplus.

Under Bush, the economy fell apart and our budget fell into massive deficits again, thanks to excessive tax cuts for the rich.

If the country is given the straight up choice between Clinton or Bush, they will choose Clinton, hands down.

I won't vote for Hillary, because Democrats are baby murderers. But then, so are Republicans. So, both are too evil to assent to.

Given the choice between two sets of murderers, it's easy to see who to prefer: the Clintonites led the country to private prosperity AND fiscal surplus. The Bushes - both of them - favored private prosperity of rich crony capitalists to the exclusion of everybody and everything else, and left the economy in shambles.

That's what Republicans do. The short-term burst of profiteering benefits the crony capitalists, but it's paid for by running up the nation's credit card.

Bill Clinton was FAR more responsible at handling the economy, and more successful at it than any President in our lifetimes.

Therefore, if it were a choice between BILL Clinton and ANY Bush, you'd want Bill Clinton back in office.

Of course, it's not Bill we'll be seeing. It's Hillary. Still, you're very likely to see Team Clinton reconstituted, and they were very good at economic matters.

So, if that's the choice: a Clinton and team Clinton, or a Bush and team Bush, it's easy: Clintons again, hands down.

But I'm not voting for babykillers either way.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-09   6:16:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

I would rather have another Clinton term.

That's an easy one.

Under Clinton, the economy soared and we had a budget surplus.

Under Bush, the economy fell apart and our budget fell into massive deficits again, thanks to excessive tax cuts for the rich.

You can't be serious. You will pick a murdering pro abort, who inherited the good of the Reagan economy.

Bush got stuck with what Clinton did.

Tax cuts for the rich? Everyone got tax cuts. Everyone pays to much taxes. If there are tax cuts of say 5 percent across the board. Of course the rich are going to get more of a tax rebate.

Half the people pay no federal taxes.

Where is the Biblical standard that says soak the rich. I thought the word of God said you keep the fruits of your labor.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-09   11:52:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

I won't vote for Hillary,

Ok I see that point now.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-09   11:52:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

Bill Clinton was FAR more responsible at handling the economy, and more successful at it than any President in our lifetimes.

Actually the Gingrich congress did that. Gingrich had balls. Boehner doesn't.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-09   11:53:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)

Actually the Gingrich congress did that. Gingrich had balls. Boehner doesn't.

Apparently, amongst other things, Clinton was busying himself raping child slaves at a secret compound.

Hillary & Bill Clinton = Scum of the earth.

Nexus6  posted on  2015-01-09   12:13:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#22)

LP is running on a rented server, so there is no physical material associated with the Liberty Post web site.

In my view, given the time SysAdmin has been working with Goldi, he is the next logical successor to taking over LP.

In spite of that view, SysAdmin has made it clear on LP that it's possible the domain name could be legally claimed by some party who claims a right to Goldi's estate. But unless and until that happens, SysAdmin has defacto and IMO, moral right to run the site.

BTW, Goldi did not pay for the domain's initial domain name registration, so if a legal issue were to be made on those grounds....

Finally, SysAdmin is a very good guy. That he has unwillingly found himself having to make decisions that would inevitably result in him being called profanities by some objectionable party doesn't change the fact that he's a good guy.

Pinguinite  posted on  2015-01-09   12:53:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Pinguinite (#30)

Finally, SysAdmin is a very good guy.

I guess I only have part of the story. None of my business anyway. I should just not say anything about it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-09   14:30:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#26)

You can't be serious. You will pick a murdering pro abort,

I will pick neither, but I am serious.

The Republican Party has controlled the Supreme Court continuously since 1969. It was a Republican Supreme Court that gave us Roe v. Wade, and Republican Supreme Courts continuously ever since that have done nothing but strengthen Roe.

Republicans are murdering pro-aborts too. The GOP gave us Roe, not the Democrats. And the GOP reinforced Roe with Casey. Not the Democrats. It was Republicans - Reagan in fact - who put O'Connor and Kennedy on the court, and Bush who put Souter up there. W Bush tried to foist off Harriet Miers on the country. The Republican Party is pro-abortion, even if people who call themselves Republicans think it is pro-life.

Clinton did not "inherit the good of the Reagan economy". The stock market collapsed in 1987 and we fell into a recession. H.W. Bush said he wasn't going to raise taxes, then he did. When Clinton took over, the US economy was not in great shape.

No Bush ever came close to balancing the federal budget.

After 8 years of Clinton, we had a budget surplus.

Clinton put into place a tax regime that found the sweet spot: not too low and not too high, and the economy did great under his Presidency.

You credit Gingrich? Well, Reagan had speaker Tip O'Neill passing laws, so, shall we credit Tip O'Neill and the Democrats with whatever good Reagan did?

The buck stops at the President's desk. The President gets the credit, and the President gets the blame. Being President is about exercising leadership. Reagan and Clinton could lead, and WHERE they led was mostly good. Not perfect. Men are not perfect. Both Reagan and Clinton left the country stronger and better off than they found it.

H.W. Bush did not. W. Bush did not. Obama is going to, though not as well off as we ought to be.

Half of people pay no federal taxes?

Untrue. Everybody who has a paycheck pays the flat Medicare and Social Security tax rate on every dollar of his wages starting with the first.

Everybody who buys gas or uses a telephone pays federal taxes. Everybody who buys alcohol or tobacco pays federal taxes.

The only people who pay no federal taxes are children.

A significant number of people don't pay income taxes, but that is not the same thing as paying no taxes. The poorest worker pays a lot in taxes.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-01-09   15:02:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Murron, *Yukon neo-Progressive Vermin* (#1)

When you switch from here back over there again, please say hi to Murron.

Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09

libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...ArtNum=350025&Disp=51#C51

Your fanboi is clamoring for attention. /s


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party


"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2015-01-09   16:33:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: hondo68 (#33)

Your fanboi is clamoring for attention. /s

What's new?

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-09   17:32:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: hondo68 (#33) (Edited)

Your fanboi is clamoring for attention. /s

YEP! He's found his calling, and a fool who lets him get away with it. He's free now to hijack any thread, trash it, trash and disrespect members with impunity, while at the same time, accuse them of what he is doing. The height of hypocracy....the prick provokes responses he doesn't like, then hides behind the bozo, or so he says, but I'll wager the worm peeks....LOL!

http://libertypost.net/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=350025&Disp=Refresh&#Bottom

#6. To: SOD, Infowarrior, sysadmin (#1) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 11:03:51 ET

************************

#7. To: Infowarrior, SOD, Palmdale (#2) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 11:07:46 ET

************************

#11. To: Infowarrior (#5) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 11:14:21 ET

************************

#13. To: Infowarrior (#10) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 11:16:32 ET

************************

#14. To: Infowarrior (#8) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 11:19:54 ET

************************

#17. To: Infowarrior (#15)

Infowarrior:"Explain what happened to make you think you are anyone I have to answer to".

GATLIN:

Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 11:25:50 ET

************************

#20. To: Infowarrior (#8) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 11:36:26 ET

************************

#22. To: Infowarrior (#19) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 11:38:55 ET

************************

#38. To: Palmdale, Booshbot666, sysadmin (#35) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 13:40:07 ET Reply

************************

#40. To: sysadmin, Booshbot666, Palmdale (#33) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 13:45:38 ET

************************

#44. To: sysadmin, TooConservative, Booshbot666 (#40) Gatlin posted on 2015-01- 09 15:13:07 ET

************************

#46. To: Booshbot666, sysadmin (#42) (Edited) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 15:35:18 ET

************************

#47. To: sysadmin, infowarrior (#31) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 15:45:58 ET

************************

#51. To: Booshbot666, sysadmin (#23) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 16:20:33 ET

************************

#52. To: Booshbot666, sysadmin (#49) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09 16:29:03 E

************************

#54. To: Palmdale, sysadmin, Booshbot666 (#50) Gatlin posted on 2015-01-09

Saga of the Gatlin, to be continued....

("Throw me to the wolves...and I will return leading the pack")

Murron  posted on  2015-01-09   17:44:00 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Murron (#35)

Oh by the way congratulations for being bozo'd by him!

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-09   17:49:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: CZ82 (#36)

Oh by the way congratulations for being bozo'd by him!

Yeah, what's he think? I'll cry and lose sleep over it? LOL!

("Throw me to the wolves...and I will return leading the pack")

Murron  posted on  2015-01-09   18:36:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Murron (#35)

The height of hypocracy....the prick provokes responses he doesn't like, then hides behind the bozo, or so he says, but I'll wager the worm peeks....LOL!

You know damn well he peeks, he has to or otherwise he wouldn't know if he was hitting the urinal or filling his shoes! :)

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2015-01-09   19:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: CZ82 (#38)

You know damn well he peeks, he has to or otherwise he wouldn't know if he was hitting the urinal or filling his shoes! :)

omg...my coffee went down the wrong way and out my nose ahahaha

("Throw me to the wolves...and I will return leading the pack")

Murron  posted on  2015-01-09   19:18:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#32)

The stock market isn't the economy. Clinton inherieted Reagans excellent economy. There were still a lot of things being made in America before Clinton signed NAFTA and sold out the middle class. That caused a great big sucking sound that was the genesis for the crappy economy to this day. That and GATT.

Oh yeah Clinton also sold China our misslie techology, er I mean he commited treason and gave it to them.

Democrats want you to work for the lazy.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-01-09   19:24:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 94) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com